Re: Fundamental Question

If you are helpless to defend the Church, step aside; clear the space for someone stronger than you. St. Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsk (d. 1936), (Locum

Message 1 of 117
, Jun 5, 2003

0 Attachment

"If you are helpless to defend the Church, step aside; clear the
space for someone stronger than you." St. Peter, Metropolitan of
Krutitsk (d. 1936), (Locum Tenens of the Patriarchate), Letter to
Metropolitan Sergei, 1930

Dear Father Anthony, bless.

I think you raised a very interesting point. We are not claiming that
the MP is graceless because of its sins or unworthiness in general,
but because of the nature of the sins and unworthiness that we are
talking about. Heresy, schism, and attack of the faith and of the
Church, preclude grace of those who practice or accept them.

"This pseudo-church has been twice anathematised. His Holiness
Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematised the
Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not
been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can only be
lifted by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor ...
"When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then
the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves
from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed. And
she, in her turn, has anathematised the official church for its
betrayal of Christ." Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) (d. 1985)

Assuming even that the MP "has grace" in spite of certain sins (that
would be the case of ROCOR as well), the MP is nevertheless anathema,
schismatic and heretic, which is a good case for gracelessness. In
addition, heretic bishops are pseudo-bishops, which does not simplify
the matter of reunion with them.

Anathema, schism and heresy need not have been proclaimed by ROCOR to
be real or to be acknowledged by her. As long as we are not
schismatic, and still part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and did
not rescind anathema proclaimed by other parts of the Russian
Orthodox Church, we acknowledge the decisions of the Orthodox Church
taken before or after ROCOR was created.

Dear Father Alexander, bless. You write: 4) Therefore, it is completely correct to call the clergy appointed by either name -- a Judicial Commission or an

Message 117 of 117
, Jun 23, 2003

0 Attachment

Dear Father Alexander, bless.

You write:

"4) Therefore, it is completely correct to call the clergy appointed
by either name -- a "Judicial Commission" or an "Ecclesiastical
Tribunal," since they were a **Judicial Commission, acting as an
Ecclesiastical Tribunal**. "

May I ask what the difference is between an "Ecclesial Tribunal" and
a "Judicial Commission"? When is one used, and when is the second
used? Why was a commission used in this case, and what precautions
were taken in this case to ensure that the judges had no personal
enmity towards the accused, or no political disagreement with them
that might bias their judgement? A judge is always biased, even when
he tries not to be.

You write:

"5) The clergy that comprised the Judicial Commission/Ecclesiastical
Tribunal all completed a full theological education, including
courses in Canon Law, and were well versed in both the Canons of the
Church and the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church. The three
clergymen had a combined one hundred years of service to the Church
as clergymen,..."

These remarks surprise me. The knowledge of the law is not what makes
a judge fair. If the judge considers that it is fair to condemn a
bishop for typos, the fact that the judge in question has a good
knowledge of the law does not reassure me. How many "years of Church
service" did the condemned French clergy have?

The fact that the judges are versed in the canons and regulations
does not guarantee that their decision was not influenced by grief
and hostile personal or political feelings. When a judgement is
challenged in appeal, the fact that the judges of the questioned
judgement are knowledgeable is not an argument to convince about the
equity of the judgement.

How come the commission was appointed, the judgement was pronounced
and confirmed by the Sobor in two week-end days, without the accused
even being informed that they were being judged and without them
later being personally notified of their own condemnation?

Is this like any serene, compassionate and wise way of behaving for
a "tribunal". Does that not recall the expedite justice of
dictatorial regimes that condemn before they have judged? What is
incomprehensible, is that apparently no precautions were taken to
guarantee a likelihood of fairness of the judgement. A frequent
character of justice is that it is perverted. What precautions were
taken in this case to see to it that justice would not be perverted?

" 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or
favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus
19:14-16)

Christian Justice, is the highest justice. It is the justice of the
Christian heart. The basic wise and at the same time clear and
understandable principle is expressed in the Gospel in these words:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them: (Mathew 7:12).

> Church Abroad.
>
> In order not to be misunderstood again, I will try to patiently

make things

> clear.
>
> 1) In each Diocese, there exists a standing Ecclesiastical Tribunal
> that typically hears cases that come up in the Diocese.
>
> 2) In addition, the Synod of Bishops can and does, when it

determines it to

> be necessary, appoint a special ad hoc Judicial Commission, which

acts as

> an Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
>
> 3) In the case of the "French Clergy," the Synod of Bishops

appointed a

> special Judicial Commission, which acted as an Ecclesiastical

Tribunal.

>
> 4) Therefore, it is completely correct to call the clergy appointed

by

> either name -- a "Judicial Commission" or an "Ecclesiastical

Tribunal,"

> since they were a **Judicial Commission, acting as an

Ecclesiastical

> Tribunal**. (This is similar to the situation in many states that

allow

> appointed Commissioners to act as Judges--they are really

Commissioners,

> but their powers are exactly the same as judges--and when a

Commisioner or

> a Judge makes a ruling, it is equally binding, no matter what the

person on

> the bench is called).
>
> Therefore, the question of whether it was a "commission" or

a "tribunal" is

> completely irrelevant, since it was. in reality, both.
>
> 5) The clergy that comprised the Judicial Commission/Ecclesiastical
> Tribunal all completed a full theological education, including

courses in

> Canon Law, and were well versed in both the Canons of the Church

and the

> Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church.
>
> The three clergymen had a combined one hundred years of service to

the

> Church as clergymen, and all three had many years experience as

Secretaries

> or Chancellors of their respective Dioceses. Each had the

experience of

> decades of service as members of Ecclesiastical Tribunals in their
> respective Dioceses, as well.
>
> 6) It must be emphasized that an Ecclesiastical Tribunal (or a

Judicial

> Commission acting as an Ecclesiastical Tribunal), does **not** have

the

> canonical authority to actually "defrock" or depose from office any
> clergyman--that authority belongs solely to the Synod (or Sobor) of